Conversation

Replying to
So let's take this situation and apply 'poly' rules to it. In this marriage, you don't actually agree to stay exclusive, because you know maybe one of you will develop desire in the future. You spend decades functionally monogamous, but one day you experience arousal towards 2/
1
26
someone else, and are able to pursue that. Both of these situations look extremely similar - both have natural desire almost exclusively for your partner over long periods of time - but one of them doesn't actually require an agreement. So this throws the term 'monogamous' 3/
1
22
into confusion for me. Is monogamy an agreement to never give into desire for intimacy outside the relationship? Or is it a natural tendency to only desire your single person? I consider it the agreement. For me, 'monogamy' refers to the rules you operate under, 4/
1
56
not the 'natural orientation of your desire.' I know this isn't an ideal division - this means that two people who have complete freedom to pursue others but never actually do, would be considered polyamorous! But still it feels much clearer than what we have now.
15
46
Replying to and
2- Saying you won’t develop attraction for another person is a lie. But committing to forego those urges for the good of literally everyone else in your life is one of the key things that make humans distinct from other animals: we can deny our instincts.
1